From: David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> > Please pardon me for barging in late in this discussion, but if we're > going to be using a bulk API here, wouldn't it make more sense to use > COPY, except where RETURNING is specified, in place of INSERT?
Please do not hesitate. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I think INSERT is better because: -------------------------------------------------- * When the user executed INSERT statements, it would look strange to the user if the remote SQL is displayed as COPY. * COPY doesn't invoke rules unlike INSERT. (I don't think the rule is a feature what users care about, though.) Also, I'm a bit concerned that there might be, or will be, other differences between INSERT and COPY. -------------------------------------------------- Also, COPY to foreign tables currently uses INSERTs, the improvement of using COPY instead of INSERT is in progress [1]. Keeping "COPY uses COPY, INSERT uses INSERT" correspondence seems natural, and it makes COPY's high-speed advantage stand out. [1] Fast COPY FROM command for the table with foreign partitions https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/3d0909dc-3691-a576-208a-90986e55489f%40postgrespro.ru Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
